#platonic explanations for things

[blackwaves]

said very contemplatively. honestly i do think link click's boundaries between different types of relationships + the coding it uses for each relationship is very archetypical and clear-cut (like. nuanced, well-developed, well-done. but: very very clearly defined to me). i think the fact that it's so deeply chinese about those different types of relationships maybe gets lost in the cultural barrier for western fans?

[scatterbrainedart]

Okay but like misogyny and gender division aside, I really like how lovers used to call each other friend. Soulmate, boy/girlfriend. Even married couples could say stuff like “ever your friend” and it wasn’t seen as friend zoning or lesser, but rather emphasising their bond and good standing with each other. Just gets me, man

[meanderingstream]

Thoughts on Leverage OT3 and Canon

I think that if some of the things that the OT3 said to each other were said by a man and a woman in a TV show, the audience would clearly read it as romantic. Like if a hetero ship said:

“For better or worse, we change together,” from the Rundown Job {for better, for worse, in sickness and in health…}

and “til my dying day” from the Long Goodbye Job {to death do us part},

and (you never really need anything.) “Yeah, I did [soft, loving look], but thanks to you I don’t have to search anymore,” from the Long Goodbye Job

and Hardison’s “for tonight, [name] has perfect pitch. You ever wonder how Britney Spears sounds so good on her tracks? Well, this is it, except mine's is in real time, Baby.” From the Studio Job,

and Parker’s [I’ll] “be here for you forever and we’ll always be together” from the Harry Wilson Job,

and Hardison’s “I’m here if you need me. Anytime,” from the Fractured Job

and the Hurricane Job with Parker and Eliot’s “I can’t do this without you.” “Well, that’s never gonna happen, [name].” “The arm around me was a nice touch,”

and “I’m making a four-course meal for them” from the Date Night Job

and “maybe I don’t like watching someone I care about take punches meant for me. You know, maybe I don’t wanna do a job that involves me watching you get hurt all the time.” From the Weekend in Paris Job

and “I mean, I’m in a great relationship, but would I even be in it if it were up to those swiping machines?” “We are in trouble.” “Nah, I mean, [me and you]? That’s fine. That’s working.”

If all those things had been said between one male and one female character, I feel like the audience would pretty clearly read it as romantic. I mean, my mom insists that Joan Watson and Sherlock Holmes got together romantically at the end of Elementary because of the hug and the line, “I’m staying. Of course I’m staying,” even though it did not read it that way to me. General audiences will read a lot of things as confirming a m/f couple because they see that kind of story so often that it’s what they expect.

Now granted, TV shows do like their slow burns because it provides tension without having to create problems in an established relationship, so fans of straight ships often do have a long wait for canonization. However, people didn’t question whether Josh and Donna from The West Wing or Tony and Ziva from NCIS were romantically interested in each other. It was clearly canon that they had those type of feelings or that type of interest for each other, there were just other things getting in the way of them actually starting to date. If a hetero ship said all those quotes listed above to each other, their romantic interest would absolutely be read as canon by the audience, even if they had not yet been shown on a date or kissing in the show. But because this is between 3 people, the OT3 is a somewhat niche ship in the general audience of Leverage outside of tumblr and AO3.

Like many of us here, I also felt let down when the Maria plotline happened in season 1 of L:R, especially after John Roger’s tweet that they’d canonized the OT3 after the Long Goodbye Job and his tweet that “your OT3 is safe” about the reboot. He specifically called it the OT3 in both cases, which pretty clearly refers to polyamory. If he meant that the characters that make up the OT3 (Hardison, Parker, and Eliot) are safe as in alive and healthy, then he should have said that. If he meant their friendship was safe, then he should have said that. If he meant they are in an open relationship or that Eliot is in a queer  emotional relationship with the other two but is not romantically and/or se✖ually involved with them, that should have been made clearer in the show. Instead, by the end of season 1, we got Eliot looking for fulfillment in life by trying to find a girlfriend to settle down with, and Parker qualifying her statement that they'd be together forever with “I know it's not the same [as a romantic relationship].”

Parker and Hardison’s romance is clearly stated and shown in the series (as it should be because they are awesome <3), but Eliot is not included in this unambiguously romantic relationship. While I am loving the partnership between the 3 of them and all of the OT3 nods so far in the 3rd season, I am also a little frustrated that they are just nods.

The burden of proof for a queer and/or poly ship is higher than a m/f pair. There is enough canon evidence to make a compelling argument that Eliot is the life partner of Hardison and Parker. However, the burden of proof for this type of relationship is higher because it is not what audiences are trained to expect. I adore the 3 of them together, and whether the series would show them all kissing or give us open, explicit discussion of their relationship as something like a queer-platonic partnership (probably not using that term, but that kind of relationship), I would love it either way. As it is now though, we get hints and nods that make OT3 shippers freak out, but that can be easily overlooked by general audiences as just good friends. If they are meant to be read as just really good friends, I wish John Rogers would not have used the term OT3, the definition of which includes the word “polyamory.” If they are meant to be polyamorous, I wish the show would make it unambiguous that’s what is going on, meeting that higher burden of proof for queer relationships.

On the other hand, I don’t want to complain about queer-baiting, because I feel like it’s not allowed to confirm your main characters are in a polyamorous relationship in a procedural like this that doesn’t center relationship drama. That seems like it’s just not possible yet. They are allowed to have a canon lesbian main character now- unlike in the original series- but I feel like maybe polyamory is still not an option. So the only other option than what the writers are currently doing is to totally disavow the OT3, which I obviously don’t want to happen. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong by the end of L:R season 3. I would absolutely love that to happen (dear God, please make that happen). But I’m not holding my breath.

I do still really appreciate John Rogers for the way he runs the show (both in the original and for season 3 of L:R) and for openly acknowledging and even supporting polyamorous ships, which is rare to find. I am aware that they fought for more queer representation in the original series but were only allowed that one cop lady from the Experiment Job in a single episode. Maybe this is the most they can get away with now, or maybe they are choosing to walk the line between hinting for the shippers while maintaining plausible deniability for everyone else. An intentional position of strategic ambiguity.

My point is that even if you don't account for the OT3 tweets, the canon status of the relationship between Hardison, Eliot, and Parker is complicated. It has enough textual evidence that if it were about a m/f pairing, then at minimum their interest/intent would be considered obviously canon. However, it does not meet the higher burden of proof that general audiences need in order to clearly realize when a queer relationship is happening. So it's left in this limbo between fully canon supported and totally unnoticed.

[iwritenarrativesandstuff]

See, I think Charles’ annoyance and frustration with the Cat King really was just pure protectiveness and not any kind of jealousy - it’s understandable, because Edwin is not telling him what happened even though something clearly did, which is not typical for them. Edwin doesn’t usually hide things like this! Of course he’s worried!

Charles’ reaction to Monty, on the other hand, is difficult to explain in a way that isn’t jealousy. You could say he’s being protective again, but Charles shows no sign of distrust in Monty, and had no idea of who Monty was or that he might betray them - he was actually very chill with him, except in a select few specific scenes. You could say he just doesn’t like him because he got brushed off during their first meeting, but not only does that not seem like Charles at all, it also doesn’t make sense, since, again, in most instances, Charles is genuinely friendly and is happy when Monty compliments him and seems to have come around to liking him (it completely flies over his head that this is a petty jab at Edwin on Monty’s part but oh well hahaha). You could say it changes up their status quo a bit and that bothers Charles. I do think this bothers him a bit, but I think, unlike Edwin, Charles’ fear and frustration here is directed more at situations (the Cat King whisking him away for several hours, as an example) than others. He’s sociable and likes being able to talk to new people. There’s absolutely no way he’d begrudge Edwin doing the same - and he doesn’t… with Niko. Edwin and Niko hit it off and become very close and that never bothers Charles at all. He’s incredibly endeared to her, just like the rest, and for the most part, he’s chill with Monty too, and smiles pretty knowingly when Edwin confesses to him having awakened some feelings. The only exceptions, where he shows definite annoyance, are when Monty first shows up and gets really in Edwin’s personal space to show him the astrology chart he made, and when Edwin is so sucked into the book Monty gave him that he doesn’t hear that Charles is talking to him, to which he annoyedly says that they seem to have been “spending a lot of time together”.

You could say he’s unused to having anyone get in Edwin’s personal space like that, but, again, Niko. She’s very tactile with him and he doesn’t seem to mind all that much; they spend time together watching things. If it was just someone getting close with Edwin in general, not only would that be weirdly possessive for the character, but it would also mean he would show discomfort with anyone getting close, I think. Does Charles see Monty as more of a potential threat than Niko, seeing as he knows her and her personality and doesn’t know Monty? Well, maybe, but again, Charles shows no sign of distrusting Monty at all.

Monty is a boy. Okay. So something about seeing Edwin so close to a boy that is not him, getting lost in thought over something this boy gave him, really rubs Charles the wrong way. Charles appears to catch on just as quickly as anyone else that there is something (or it looks like something) between Edwin and Monty. He is not surprised when Edwin comes out to him in episode 6, and in fact, seems to have just been waiting for him to verbalize it. He smiles and is not bothered at all by Edwin showing (what he thinks is) a romantic interest in Monty - he just doesn’t like it when Monty clearly shows a romantic interest in Edwin. Um. Well. Well.

Charles is jealous. I really don’t know what else to say.

Look, when I first watched this show, I actually didn’t want them to end up together romantically - I love the idea of one having fallen in love with another who does not reciprocate and the two of them still loving each other just as much. That Edwin’s confession made them closer instead of making things awkward is such a beautiful outcome to this build up and I absolutely love it. However. On my two rewatches, I caught a lot more little details, and I think it would be very strange if the show did not follow up on this. That, plus the deliberate quality of these “jealousy” moments where the camera focuses on him, Charles’ Orpheus coding throughout the show, the fact that Edwin’s arc was far more about realizing his feelings for Charles specifically than just coming to terms with his sexuality, and that even the actors admit that Charles’ response to the confession kind of left things open, it really seems to me like the path leads to a romantic endgame for them, or at the very least, that this possibility will be explored in more depth.

**This is just my reading of it. Please do not use this post as a gotcha for anyone who loves them as a platonic duo or people who really love Crystal and Charles together (because let’s face it, they’re super cute too). I’m just doing my rambles. As per usual.

[pauls1967moustache]

Do you also feel that a lot of the songs that Paul says are for Linda are actually more directed at John?

Nope! I tend to have a more sceptical view of lyrics mclennon trutherism than I think a lot of people in this fandom do. I think a lot of songs are about John in the sense that writing is an amalgamation of various inspirations both conscious and subconscious, and given that Paul obviously thinks about John a lot completely unprovoked, the impression of his feelings about John probably finds its way into the music in ways that he didn’t intend. Do I think his lyrics have direct (or secret indirect) references to John? Honestly, not really, no. Also, Linda was his wife whom he loved and was married to for like 30 years - of course a large majority of the love songs he wrote will be about her. I actually think this fandom doesn’t give him enough credit in that regard. Like I’ve seen people say lines in Maybe I’m Amazed are secret references to John, like can we be for real for minute guys? Can Linda have some love songs from the guy who was actually in love with her? As a treat?

[nellasbookplanet]

Man talking about the asexual experience in fandom is frustrating sometimes

Me: I wish shippers weren't so eager to say 'there's no platonic explanation for this' and 'they're OBVIOUSLY IN LOVE' about characters being deeply close, or accusing any close same-sex friendship that isn't confirmed romantic as queerbaiting, or claim their fanon ship is basically canon and that reading it any other way is wrong, or-

Some rando on the internet: so you're homophobic then?? You say we shouldn’t have same-sex ships that aren't canonical??

Me: no, I'm saying we shouldn’t place romantic relationships on a piedestal or claim they're inherently more important than platonic ones and we CERTAINLY shouldn’t harrass creators and other fans who don’t cater to or critique whatever ship is most popular, also this applies just as much to straight ships as-

Some other rando on the internet: YEAH the WOKE MOB is ruining our media with their gay ships!

Me: ...

Me: buddy if you saw what I ship either platonically or romantically your head would explode. we are not the same

[tiredandoptimistic]

Okay but I do love the genre-awareness of the Capitol presenting Gale to their viewers as Katniss's cousin. The interviewers went to District Twelve and knew immediately that if Katniss's best friend was a hot guy then everybody watching the Games would see him as a love interest to rival Peeta, which wouldn't fit with the "star-crossed lovers" narrative. Collins clearly understands that M/F friendship isn't seen as a real option in YA, and shippers will instantly see "two people who care about each other deeply" as "two people who are in love." This is made kind of ironic when Gale actually does show romantic interest in Katniss, but it's still a good point about how the only way to prevent fans from turning friendships into ships is to make the two characters literally related (and sometimes even that doesn't stop them).

[reallyneedsalife]

"there's no platonic explanation for this" is coward talk

let people love each other in new ways, let characters love each other in news ways.

putting your life on the line for someone doesn't mean you're romantically in love with them, that's feeble at best. sure, maybe they're locking lips, but until it's canon and happens on screen they're best friends in my heart.

[aceyanaheim]

like a big part of me identifying more and more as Queer more than anything is like yes ofc mileage varies on how squishy or nicknamey i get but on the whole theres just.

Ill defientely look at some things and go yup id do that for my friend or id say that for my friend and I dont care you dont think its not a platonic thing. Like i pursue and want very Deep platonic relationships as my primary relationships and there's a Lot of blurriness on "is this gesture platonic only or not" and Ive long since decided it's between me and the other person ( this is Outside of qpps too)

Like I do get told it's weird and outside societal norms and it's does lead to some isolation and like Still You just .. you can't put me back in that box like yes i'm aromantic but also beyond that i'm queer. My relationships are Queer. The way I approach them is queer.

Another part is that while yes i'm aroace i still identify with the "keep it up Chad I'll fuck your girlfriend" anti biphobe meme

[alex-strike-is-transgender]

Tbh I'd much rather your reason for shipping something is just "I wanted to" or "it sounded cool" or "I find it cute/hot" than "there is not platonic explanation for this"

[aroaessidhe]

2024 reads / storygraph

Lord of the Empty Isles

sci-fi/fantasy

set on a supposedly utopian planet recovering from a climate crisis, where bonds between people are able to be seen and manipulated (by some people)

follows a young man whose brother was cursed and killed by an infamous outlaw 5 years ago, and he’s finally able to curse him back - but it rebounds, as he’s somehow fatebound to the outlaw

to find a cure and save them both they have to team up, and he quickly finds out that the resources the outlaw is stealing go to the thousands of people neglected on prison planets, and he has to go against what he thought was right to help them

no romance, aroace MC, focus on platonic relationships

arc from netgalley, out june 6

[lemonwarrior]

I very much am someone who doesn't go with the "There is no platonic explanation for this," line of thought, because well, no, yes there is I'm just choosing to see this as gay

[pigeonentity]

please stop phrasing enthusiasm for your ship/annoyance at your ship not being canon as an attack at people who don't ship it

its rude but also we keep dipping into arophobia here

[gu6chan]

leonard 1.3 autism headcanon bc i don't know how he honestly expected to come off doing all that

[s-ccaam-era-crepe]

Kelly and Sam are the most ‘good luck babe’ ever and in this essay I will-

[realllism]

some of you really need to work on your ideas about romantic and platonic love being so completely separate that they might as well be different entities. they’re entirely conceptual, of course they’re going to crossover, what’s platonic for one person (eg. holding hands) might be romantic for another